Retraction Controversy of Jose Rizal

(James B. Dellava – BSN I – STEM B)

Several historians report that Rizal retracted his anti-Catholic ideas through a document
which stated: "I retract with all my heart whatever in my words, writings, publications
and conduct have been contrary to my character as a son of the Catholic
Church."However, there are doubts of its authenticity given that there is no certificate
of Rizal's Catholic marriage to Josephine Bracken. Also there is an allegation that the
retraction document was a forgery.

After analyzing six major documents of Rizal, Ricardo Pascual concluded that the
retraction document, said to have been discovered in 1935, was not in Rizal's
handwriting. Senator Rafael Palma, a former President of the University of the
Philippines and a prominent Mason, argued that a retraction is not in keeping with
Rizal's character and mature beliefs. He called the retraction story a "pious
fraud." Others who deny the retraction are Frank Laubach, a Protestant minister; Austin
Coates, a British writer; and Ricardo Manapat, director of the National Archives.

Those who affirm the authenticity of Rizal's retraction are prominent Philippine
historians such as Nick Joaquin, Nicolas Zafra of UP León María Guerrero III, Gregorio
Zaide, Guillermo Gómez Rivera, Ambeth Ocampo, John Schumacher, Antonio
Molina, Paul Dumol and Austin Craig. They take the retraction document as authentic,
having been judged as such by a foremost expert on the writings of Rizal, Teodoro
Kalaw (a 33rd degree Mason) and "handwriting experts...known and recognized in our
courts of justice", H. Otley Beyer and Dr. José I. Del Rosario, both of UP.

Historians also refer to 11 eyewitnesses when Rizal wrote his retraction, signed a
Catholic prayer book, and recited Catholic prayers, and the multitude who saw him kiss
the crucifix before his execution. A great grand nephew of Rizal, Fr. Marciano Guzman,
cites that Rizal's 4 confessions were certified by 5 eyewitnesses, 10 qualified witnesses,
7 newspapers, and 12 historians and writers including Aglipayan bishops, Masons and
anti-clericals. One witness was the head of the Spanish Supreme Court at the time of
his notarized declaration and was highly esteemed by Rizal for his integrity.

1|Page
Because of what he sees as the strength these direct evidence have in the light of
the historical method, in contrast with merely circumstantial evidence, UP
professor emeritus of history Nicolas Zafra called the retraction "a plain unadorned fact
of history." Guzmán attributes the denial of retraction to "the blatant disbelief and
stubbornness" of some Masons.

Supporters see in the retraction Rizal's "moral courage...to recognize his

mistakes," his reversion to the "true faith", and thus his "unfading glory,"and a return to
the "ideals of his fathers" which "did not diminish his stature as a great patriot; on the
contrary, it increased that stature to greatness." On the other hand, senator Jose
Diokno stated, "Surely whether Rizal died as a Catholic or an apostate adds or detracts
nothing from his greatness as a Filipino... Catholic or Mason, Rizal is still Rizal - the hero
who courted death 'to prove to those who deny our patriotism that we know how to die
for our duty and our beliefs'.

What is the case against the Retraction?

1. The Retraction Document is said to be a forgery. As we have noted,

the Document plays a significant part on both sides of the debate. There
are four prongs to the case against the document itself.

a. First of all there is the matter of the handwriting. To date the only
detailed, scientific study leading to an attack upon the
genuineness of the document is that made by Dr. Ricardo R.
Pascual of the University of the Philippines shortly after the
document was found, a study which he incorporated in his
book Rizal Beyond the Grave. Taking as his “standard” some half
dozen unquestioned writings of Rizal dating from the last half of
December 1896, he notes a number of variations with the
handwriting of the Retraction Document, the following being the
most significant ones according to the present lecturer: (1) the
slant of the letters in the standard writings gives averages several
points higher than the average yielded by the Retraction
Document, and perhaps more significantly, the most slanted
letters are to be found in the Document; (2) there are significant
variations in the way individual letters are formed; (3) with
reference to the signature, Pascual notes no less than seven
differences, one of the most significant being indications of
“stops” which, says the critic, are most naturally explained by the
fact that a forger might stop at certain points to determine what
form to make next; (4) there are marked similarities in several

2|Page
 respects between the body of the Retraction and the writing of all
three signers, i.e. Rizal and the two witnesses, thus serving to
point to Pascual’s conclusion that this is a “one-man document.”

The only scholarly answer to Pascual is that given by Dr. José I.

Del Rosario as part of the thesis which he prepared for his doctorate in
chemistry at the University of Sto. Tomas, 1937, although most of the
details are the result of a later study which Father Cavanna asked him
to specifically prepare. (18) Dr. del Rosario’s main criticism may be
said to be that Pascual does not include enough of Rizal’s writings by
way of comparison. On the basis of a larger selection of standards he
is able to challenge a number of Pascual’s statements although this
lecturer has noted mistakes in del Rosario’s own data. Dr. del
Rosario’s conclusion is that the hand-writing is genuine.

b. A second prong directed against the authenticity of the document

itself is based on the principles of textual criticism. Several critics,
beginning so far as I know with Pascual, have noted differences
between the text of the document found in 1935 and other
versions of the Retraction including the one issued by Father
Balaguer. (19) Since this kind of criticism is related to my work in
Biblical studies I am now engaged in a major textual study of my
own which consists first of all in gathering together all available
forms of the text. To date, it is clear from my own studies that at
least from the morning of December 30, 1896 there have been,
discounting numerous minor variations, two distinct forms of the
text with significant differences. The one form is represented by
the Document discovered in 1935 and certain other early records
of the Retraction. Two phrases in particular are to be noted: in
line 6, “Iglesia Catolica,” and in line 10 “la Iglesia.” The other
form of the text is much more common beginning with the text of
Balaguer published in 1897. In place of “Iglesia Catolica” in line 6
there is the single word “Iglesia” and in place of “la Iglesia” there
appears “la misma Iglesia.” There also tend to be consistent
differences between the two types of the text in the use of
capital letters. The second form also claims to be a true
representation of the original.

The usual explanation of these differences is that either

Father Balaguer or Father Pi made errors in preparing a copy of the
original and these have been transmitted from this earliest copy to
others. Father Cavanna makes the ingenious suggestion that Father
Balaguer made corrections in the “formula” which he supplied to
Rizal according to the charges which he supplied to Rizal writing
out his own, but he didn’t accurately note them all. On the other

3|Page
 hand, it would have seemed that the copy would have been
carefully compared at the very moment or at some other early date
before the “original” disappeared. It is not surprising that some
have wondered if the Retraction Document was fabricated from the
“wrong” version of a retraction statement issued by the religious
authorities.

c. A third argument against the genuineness of the Retraction

Document which also applies to the Retraction itself is that its
content is in part strangely worded, e.g. in the Catholic
Religion “I wish to live and die,” yet there was little time to
live, and also Rizal’s claim that his retraction was “spontaneous.”

d. Finally, there is the “confession” of “the forger.” Only Runes has

this story. He and his co-author report an interview with a certain
Antonio K. Abad who tells how on August 13, 1901 at a party at
his ancestral home in San Isidro, Nueva Ecija (when Abad was
fifteen) a certain Roman Roque told how he was employed by the
Friars earlier that same year to make several copies of a
retraction document. This same Roque had been previously
employed by Colonel Funston to forge the signature of the
revolutionary General Lacuna on the document which led to the
capture of Aguinaldo. Runes also includes a letter dated
November 10, 1936 from Lorenzo Ador Dionisio, former provincial
secretary of Nueva Ecija, who was also present when Roque told
his story and confirms it. (20)

On the basis of the above arguments taken as a whole it would seem that there
is reasonable ground to at least question the Retraction Document.

(2) The second main line of argument against the Retraction is the claim that
other acts and facts do not fit well with the story of the Retraction. Those most often
referred to by writers beginning with Hermengildo Cruz in 1912 are as follows:

a. The document of Retraction was not made public until 1935. Even members of
the family did not see it. It was said to be “lost.”

b. No effort was made to save Rizal from the death penalty after his signing of
the Retraction.

The usual rebuttal is that Rizal’s death was due to political factors and
with this the religious authorities could not interfere.

c. Rizal’s burial was kept secret; he was buried outside the inner wall of the Paco
cemetery; and the record of his burial was not placed on the page for entries

4|Page
 of Dec. 30th but on a special page where at least one other admitted non-
penitent is recorded (perhaps others, the evidence is conflicting).

It is asked by the defenders of the Retraction, how else could an executed

felon be treated? Perhaps the ground outside the wall was sacred also or could
have been specially consecrated. To top the rebuttal, Rizal’s “Christian Burial
Certificate” was discovered on May 18, 1935 in the very same file with the
Retraction Document! The penmanship is admitted by all to be by an
amanuensis. Whether the signature is genuine is open to question.

d. There is no marriage certificate or public record of the marriage of Rizal with

Josephine Bracken. To say that these were not needed is not very convincing.

e. Finally, Rizal’s behavior as a whole during his last days at Fort Santiago and
during the last 24 hours in particular does not point to a conversion. Whether
written during the last 24 hours or somewhat earlier, Rizal’s Ultima [Ultimo]
Adios does not suggest any change in Rizal’s thought. The letters which Rizal
wrote during his last hours do not indicate conversion or even religious
turmoil. In the evening Rizal’s mother and sister Trinidad arrive and nothing
is said to them about the Retraction although Father Balaguer claims that
even in the afternoon Rizal’s attitude was beginning to change and he was
asking for the formula of retraction. It is all well and good to point out that all
the above happened prior to the actual retraction. A question is still present
in the minds of many.

(3) The third chief line of argument against the Retraction is that it is out of
character. This argument has been more persistently and consistently presented than
any other. Beginning with the anonymous leaflet of Dec. 31, 1896 it has been asserted
or implied in every significant statement against the Retraction since that time. It has
seemed to many, including the present lecturer, that the Retraction is not in keeping
with the character and faith of Rizal as well as inconsistent with his previous
declarations of religiousthought.

First let us look at the character of the man. Rizal was mature. Anyone
acquainted with the facts of his life knows this is so. Thirty-five is not exactly young and
Rizal was far more mature than the average at this age. It is not likely, then, that he
would have been shocked into abnormal behavior by the threat of death. He had
anticipated for some time that the authorities would destroy him, and even the priests
admit that during most of his last 24 hours Rizal manifested a type of behavior
consistent with all that was previously exhibited during his mature years. I worked
closely with prisoners for some ten years and accompanied two of them to the scaffold.
Their behavior was restrained and consistent. I would have expected Rizal’s to be the
same. Furthermore, in the deepest sense of the word Rizal was already a “believer.” In
my book and elsewhere I have argued strongly that Rizal was not a “free-thinker” in the
usual sense of the word. History is full of the unchallenged reports of real conversions,

5|Page
but the most significant meaning of true conversion is the change from unbelief to
belief, not mere change of ideas.

Rizal’s conversion is also out of keeping with his mature religious thought. It is
not as though Rizal had been bowled over by confrontation with the new thought of
Europe (and by antagonism towards religious authorities who had injured his family and
who worked hand-in-hand with a restrictive colonial regime) but had never fully thought
through his religious convictions. As I have written elsewhere: “The fact that similar
views are found from writing to writing of his mature years and that they made a quite
consistent whole suggest that such theology as he had was fully his own . . . .” (21)
Rizal had a consistent and meaningful system of Christian thought, and it is therefore
harder to think of his suddenly exchanging it for another.

6|Page